🤔 25 Thoughtful Quotes On Tolerance and Diversity

Can there be true tolerance without uniformity? Challenge assumptions and ponder the necessity of diversity in these 25 tolerance quotes.

1. "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don't engage or even consider contrary opinions. It's easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it."
- Greg Koukl, Relativism

2. "Proponents of [this] cultural tolerance will point out that when you fail to endorse a person's beliefs and behavior, you are, in effect, rejecting the person. [For example], many claim that homosexuality is not merely a sexual act or a natural orientation; it is a state of being—an identity. Many assert that people are born gay, and when you condemn homosexuality, it's an affront to their personhood and a direct condemnation and discrimination against them as human beings."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

3. "[Ironically], Some of the most vocal advocates for tolerance are completely intolerant of those who express their belief in a biblical morality, especially if they do so in the public arena."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

4. "Cultural tolerance does not simply require that we give others the freedom to believe or live differently than we do. It has evolved into a demand that we accept, respect, and affirm the rightness of others' views and behavior--or be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and even hateful."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called "The Beauty of Intolerance." In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today's society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of "hate" and "phobias" and "intolerance." He focused specifically on the Church's speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, "The Beauty of Intolerance," that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children's lives, your grandchildren's lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the "pro-choice" position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the "pro-life" position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child. The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Resolving the Sabbath Day Challenge: Defending God's Character and Existence in an Old Earth Creationist Perspective

Introduction

Among the many types of challenges that atheists raise against the Christian worldview, scientific challenges rank quite high in frequency. Many Christians find themselves in disagreement with other Christians about how particular challenges are resolved, and these disagreements have resulted in many heated theological debates. Many atheists argue that the Bible teaches that the universe is young yet they believe the universe to be ancient. The way to resolve this is one of the hot debates within the Church. Young earth creationists (YEC) believe that the Bible teaches a young universe and that the universe actually is young. Old earth creationists (OEC) believe that the Bible either teaches an age longer than YECs believe or that the Bible is silent on the issue and that the universe actually is ancient. While there are numerous areas regarding origins that can be agreed upon and the fact that this debate is certainly not worth dividing over, it is important that we discuss it for the sake of defending the true worldview against challenges to even the details (see my post "Internal Debates and Apologetics" for more on this aspect of defending the faith).

Over the course of many discussions of this question with fellow Christians, one challenge that young earth creationists believe is a defeater for the old earth creationist view is the analogy found in the fourth of the Ten Commandments:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."- Exodus 20:8-11 (NIV)

When I held to the YEC position, this was one of the passages of Scripture that I would often use as a proof text of my view that the days of Genesis could be no longer than 24-hour periods of time (and that the age of the earth and universe were no more than a several thousand years). When I saw that God's creation revealed a history going back billions of years rather than just thousands, atheists would often use this same supposed defeater to demonstrate the falsehood of the claims of the Bible.

Every now and then this challenge comes back up in my discussions with both Christians and atheists, and its most recent appearance has been in comments on Facebook regarding my critique of the Christian documentary "Is Genesis History." In my critique, while taking the position that Genesis 1-11 accurately records the historical events of origins within its pages, I disagreed that Genesis teaches that the earth and universe are young (between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as the creators of the documentary defended). So, today I want to take some time to address this challenge.

Alfie Evans, Humanism, and Christ

Introduction

Those who have followed the Faithful Thinkers blog for a year or more know that I followed the case of Charlie Gard last summer. Gard was born with a rare disease that the medical facility that was treating him was ill-equipped to deal with. He died at the hand of the British courts and doctors because these ill-equipped doctors refused to recognize other possible solutions. Instead of seeking outside help to save the life of a defenseless child, they sought to legally kill him instead. Other nations and medical facilities offered to transport and treat Gard at their expense, but all volunteered help was rejected and condemned by the doctors, and courts were eventually appealed to by the British doctors to order that Gard be left in their knowingly-incapable hands. The courts granted that request much to the horror of the parents and the rest of the civilized world. And now in 2018, it is happening again; this time to a child by the name of Alfie Evans. LifeSiteNews has been following the story carefully, so for the details, please click the link. The suffering that is being endured by Alfie and his parents is unnecessary, gratuitous, and atrocious.

Without God, Do We All "Bleed The Same"?

Without God, Do We All "Bleed The Same"?- Introduction

Without God, the war against racism makes no sense at all. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. grounded his fight and mission in the fact that God exists, because he knew that without God, so many foundations of such a fight are nonexistent. I was recently made aware of this beautiful song by Mandisa (featuring TobyMac and Kirk Franklin) addressing the tensions that still plague America today. Please take the time to listen, then read below to see how nothing that moved your heart in this video can be explained unless Christianity is the true worldview.



What a beautiful song that should express the heart and desire of every human. However, unless the view promoted by the song has a foundation in reality, then our emotions are merely playing a trick on us to believe that something is true and noble when those are merely illusions. There are several foundations that disappear if Christianity is false, but I want to focus on three today:

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?- Introduction

"Would Jesus participate in politics?" This has been a common question posed among followers of Jesus Christ since he was asked about paying taxes to Caesar. It came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd take some time to prepare a careful answer. Some Christians believe that a theocracy should be established on earth, while some other Christians believe that we should not have anything to do with politics. The rest of us believe that the correct position falls somewhere in the middle, and we struggle to find where. While I do not claim to know exactly where the correct balance is located, I do want to offer some observations and reflections that may help us identify an acceptable range of options.

Apple CEO Tim Cook on Purpose and Ethics in Technology

Introduction

For MIT's (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 2017 graduation, Apple Computers' CEO Tim Cook was asked to give the commencement speech. As a fellow information technologist, I wanted to see what he would say to the next generation of technological engineers. He provided an inspiring speech that encouraged the graduating students to pursue a career in technology because technology can serve the higher purpose of humanity. You can watch the full speech on YouTube.

Tim Cook's Speech

Cook began with this: "When you work towards something greater than yourself, you find meaning; you find purpose." He said that he had searched for a higher purpose in his life; he tried many things, including religion. He then spoke of the value and importance of humanity and how technology is improving life. He told a story of one of his Apple shareholders' meetings where he explained to one shareholder that his company's focus was not necessarily on the ROI (return on investment) of a technology but that its focus was "the right thing to do." He also stated that while some people fear artificial intelligence's becoming more human-like, his concern was the humanity's thinking was becoming more machine-like: devoid of values, compassion, and concern for consequences. He concluded with "There is so much on the internet to make you cynical...do not get caught up in the trivial things of life...stay focused on what really matters."

In the speech, Cook made sure to mention the importance of the humanities to the science and math graduates. I am glad that Cook values the humanities. I value them as well, including philosophy. Unfortunately, several philosophical problems arise when the claims in his speech are investigated more deeply. I would like to make the point that his comments about Apple's disregarding the ROI of technologies make it clear that he is not making subjective (opinion) claims, rather he is making claims that are objectively true for everyone- they are true whether anyone believes them or not. He believes that his and his company's valuing of ROI over human life would be objectively wrong. In order for any of his claims to be objectively true and have any meaning outside of the individual, the different claims must all have a grounding in reality, but he mentioned at the beginning of his speech that he rejected the only source for such grounding. Let's see what the implications of such rejection are.

Charlie Gard and Purpose in Suffering

The World Watches Charlie Gard

With the international attention received by baby Charlie Gard in the United Kingdom (including my post from last week), good news has been received: the judge has granted a hearing of new evidence about experimental treatment available in the United States, claims that Charlie is not, in fact, suffering pain, and that damage to his brain caused by a rare mitochondrial disease is not permanent. The hearing began yesterday, and the judge is waiting for more information before a new decision is reached. Here is the latest from Life Site News: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/charlie-gards-day-in-court

UPDATE: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-american-doctor-will-examine-charlie-gard-on-monday

While the world awaits the updated decision, conversations are still taking place in the public square about the value of human life and the role of "quality of life" in medical decisions (even among Christians). My post from last week received a series of concerns that are commonly raised with those who have defended human life in these situations. I will quote the concerns and provide a response to help equip you, the reader, to think clearly and logically and respond with comfort and love regarding such issues.

I want to preface this with the fact that the person raising the concerns was a Christian who is also struggling through how to properly respond and act within the Christian worldview. All concerns in such emotional cases need to be understood in the context that we are not merely talking about ideas but lives, humans created in the Image of God, who may be struggling themselves with the pain of the (potential) loss of a friend or family member, such as baby Charlie. These concerns should not necessarily be seen as challenges to put the defender of life on the defensive but rather in the position of a comforter who God has put in this position to help guide in this painful time. We are the Body of Christ- God's "hands and feet" in this world , so we are called to minister to the broken in heart and in mind. With that in mind, let's look at these concerns.

Hobby Lobby, Archaeological Artifacts, and Contradiction

I noticed this story going around on social media this morning and wanted to offer a quick comment. It appears that a settlement has been reached between the owners of Hobby Lobby and the government regarding the unlawful acquisition of archaeological artifacts for their Museum of the Bible. They have agreed to forfeit the artifacts and put in place policies and procedures to ensure that such illegal acquisitions do not take place in the future. You may read the story here and here.

In our zeal to defend and preserve the Bible, Christians must ensure that their methods are both moral and legal. I do not know if the Hobby Lobby owners knowingly acted illegally or not (my understanding is that there is much evidence to suggest intended smuggling), but they definitely needed to do more research and take extra steps to ensure moral and legal acquisition of the artifacts. If the Museum of the Bible is to stand as a testament to the reliable transmission of the Bible through the ages, it cannot stand due to a violation of the morals taught within the Bible's pages.

I'm glad to see Hobby Lobby take steps to improve their methods and reduce possibility of legal violations with future acquisitions. Let's pray that the owners will learn from this experience and will act in wisdom going forward to complete their project.

This needs to be a lesson for all Christians, especially those involved in representing Christ in a very public way (all parachurch ministries fall into this category). We need to ensure that our scholarship and execution of projects are conducted with the highest level of honesty and legality (intellectual and financial). I like how Ravi Zacharias articulated the potential problem:

If we do not conduct our ministries with the highest level of moral character, then we run the risks of allowing contradiction to enter our lives and being identified as hypocrites. Intelligent people know that the correct worldview cannot contain contradictions, and if we present our worldview as contradictory, we provide them with a reason to reject our worldview as true. We must make the conscious choice to represent Christ with the highest level of honesty, so "they may see our good works and glorify our Father, who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16b)

For further investigation into the ethical topics covered here check out these deeper posts:

• Has Christianity Failed You?
• Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• The Grand Weaver

The Court-Ordered Death of a Child

UPDATE (7/7/17)- A new hearing has been scheduled. See a quick alert here.

Original Article:

As a parent, can you imagine being in a situation where you trust a doctor to save your child's life but he betrays that trust and seeks legal permission to kill your child instead? That is the stuff of any parent's worst nightmare, yet it is the reality of Chris Gard' and Connie Yates' recent experience. 

Eleven months ago Charlie Gard was born to the couple in London. Doctors quickly discovered that the newborn's brain was malformed, and he could not breathe on his own. These issues were caused by a rare genetic condition that the hospital has been treating Charlie for since his birth. The doctors recently concluded that no further treatment could be given to the Charlie without causing "significant harm," and their solution was to seek a court order granting them permission to end Charlie's life by denying all life support. The court did the unthinkable by granting the request. The devastated parents requested that instead of killing their baby boy, that they be permitted to have their son transported to the United States to undergo an experimental treatment that offered some hope. To make the situation worse, the court denied their request, so life support will be removed and Charlie's life will be taken by the very people trusted to save it. The full story may be found here.

As a parent, I cannot imagine the agony this couple is being forced to endure. Even merely thinking of such a nightmare coming true causes emotions to run wild: sorrow, anguish, anger, confusion. But these emotions are not merely feelings with no grounding in reality; these emotions are triggered by an innate understanding that violations of reality are taking place. What are those violations that spur such emotions?

Intrinsic human value is violated- Humans have intrinsic value, regardless of the level of development. Intrinsically valuable lives must be protected, also, regardless of the level of development. 

Logic is violated- Just because the single medical facility does not have the resources to continue treatment does not mean that all other medical facilities lack the resources to continue treatment. The parents know of a facility in the US that could continue treatment, and they informed the court and explicitly requested they be allowed to transport their son. That is a most reasonable and logical request. The denial of the parent's request was based on the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. The court's ruling on the parents' request was unreasonable and illogical. 

Ethics (Hypocratic oath) are violated- "I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery...I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases." I do not know if the doctors involved took the Hypocratic oath (or any modern version), but if they did, they are in clear violation of, at least, these two lines.

Trust is violated- If we trust doctors to do everything they can then refer to someone else once their resources are exhausted (based upon the three previous points), yet they violate that trust by instead seeking a court order to end the life of their patients, on what logical basis should we trust these doctors? Even if the doctors treating Charlie did not know of the experimental treatment at the time the order was requested, the moment they discovered it, they should have dropped their court request and sought resources to get Charlie to the new facility as soon as possible. 

In order to not seek a different solution for Charlie (namely a different treatment), a denial of these violations is necessary. And there is only one way to deny that all these have been violated: to deny that they are features of reality, and to accomplish that one must deny the existence of God. 

The United States of America was founded to escape this over-reaching of the government into our lives. In America we have enjoyed the benefits of a government that recognizes that people are created in the Image of their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. If we do not stand up and defend the truth of Christianity in the marketing place of ideas, this is what we can expect to come to become our reality, our kids' reality, our grandkids' reality; we and they can expect to lose the right to live at all. We will live in a world without reason, without trust, without life, and without God.

If you would like to go deeper into this and prepare yourself to defend our God-given rights, check out these more in depth posts and books:

• The Importance of the Image of God
• Is Religion the Practice of Avoiding Truth?
• Legislating Morality- Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?
• The Case for Life
• Christian Ethics- Issues and Options
• Tactics- A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions

Does Scripture Ground Morality, Hope, and Meaning?

Introduction

I saw this meme on social media the other day. It states "Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness." It caught my attention because of how its author attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning. Even though skeptics of Christianity do not have the correct worldview, they still have the ability to identify contradictions, unsound arguments, and false claims made by adherents of other worldviews (in virtue of their being created in the Image of God). If a defender of the Christian worldview attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning in an invalid source and defend that incorrect grounding, a knowledgeable skeptic will be able to identify the faulty claim and use that as a reason to remain skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this meme offers the incorrect grounding for morality, hope, and meaning. It is important that we understand how the grounding is incorrect, the implications of its being incorrect, and what the proper grounding is, so that we can be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have when a skeptic challenges the claims of this meme.

Why Is The Image of God So Important?

Introduction

Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend "mere" Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.

📚 Top 5 Books For Ethics and Politics 🗽

Common Questions and Challenges in Political Discussions

• Who are you to judge someone else? 
• Who's ethical system are we to abide by (if anyone's)?
• Isn't it wrong to legislate a specific morality? 
• Isn't morality relative to each individual, anyway? 

These are questions that we often find in today's politically charged culture. One side says that morality is objective and should be legislated, while the other side says morality is relative and government should stay out of it. There is also in-fighting on both sides and a whole range of views between the two extremes. Many skeptics get caught up in all the different views that Christians hold and use that as a reason to not believe the Christian worldview and the ethical implications of it. How do we think logically about this and how do we discuss it in a calm but persuasive manner. I have put together my Top 5 Recommended Books to prepare you for these discussions in every encounters, whether you plan to engage others or merely listen and analyze. For your convenience I have linked to my chapter-by-chapter reviews of the books and provided a short reason why I chose the books for this list, but if you really want the details and wish to engage the content of the books, you will need to pick up a copy. Now, on to the list!

Top 5 Books for Discussing Ethics and Politics

1. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air- Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith
2. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues- Norman Geisler
3. Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible- Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
4. The Case For Life- Scott Klusendorf
5. Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions- Greg Koukl

Why Did I Choose These Books? 

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

In any discussion about ethics and politics, a foundation needs to be established. That foundation begins with whether or not morality is objective or relative. If relative, discussions are reduced to mere opinion. If objective, then there is a correct ethic and application in politics to be discovered, and discussion involves the defense of particular views. Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith take everyday situations and show how relative morality cannot possibly be correct. It is philosophically deep yet written in an easy-to-digest style (its not boring). This book sets the foundation for discussing ethics and politics and helps the reader to defend objective morality in these discussions.

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues

Political discussions do not always take place between two people of completely divergent worldviews; many times they are between two of the same worldview. Many Christians believe different ethical systems that they have derived from the pages of the Bible. These systems result in different applications in everyday life and in politics, so it is important that Christians understand which ethical view makes the most consistent sense of the most biblical data. Norman Geisler examines different ethical views that Christians have proposed in history and compares them to the biblical data; he provides a philosophical critique of the various views; and defends the view he believes is the accurate view. This book made my list because it guides the reader through defending the proper view, which will help defend particular ethical and political views from a logical and biblical perspective. 

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

In political discussions it is common to hear an objector say that morality should not be legislated because it is not wise, legal, or even possible. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek take the reader through the philosophical foundations for the founding documents of the United States of America. They also examine the logical fallacies involved with the claims that morality cannot and should not be legislated. They also spend a large portion of the book describing a model for determining what morality should be legislated and what morality should not be legislated. And how this model plays out in various hot political topics is presented. If you engage in or just listen to discussions on politics, this book needs to be read. It will help provide a powerful context for analysis and discussion of ethical and political positions.

The Case For Life

One of the big ethical and political issues of today is the topic of abortion. Discussions of abortion are often emotionally heated and rarely go anywhere because of the usual lack of a persuasive case by either side. Scott Klusendorf takes a commonly accepted source for truth that both sides acknowledge: science. He presents a powerful positive case that the unborn are unique, alive, and human. He scientifically and philosophically critiques the most common and more philosophically rigorous pro-choice arguments. He presents them in a way that is easy to understand and present in everyday discussions. This book is indispensable for the pro-life defender to present a scientifically focused case to those who value the findings of the scientific disciplines. 

Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Finally, just possessing all the knowledge from the above books will not necessarily make conversations on ethics and politics productive. The person who wishes to persuade others in conversation must present their case in a winsome, respectful, and calm manner. Greg Koukl's book "Tactics" takes the reader through several different principles and real-life conversations to show how to intentionally discuss controversial issues in a non-combative posture. While this book is the last one listed, it could easily be the first one on the list that I recommend you read. You will be able to apply its principles throughout the time that you are reading through the other books and the books in any other Top 5 list.

Related Posts: Conducting Controversial Conversations

• 8 Tips To Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• 4 Questions To Ask Before You Hit SEND
• Top 5 Books For Having Productive Conversations
• Gentleness and Respect in Discussions
• Greg Koukl: A Challenge To Your View Could Be A Blessing

Related Posts: Ethics and Politics

• The Scourge of Racism in America
• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Would Jesus Participate In Politics?
• Why Is The Image of God So Important? 
• What Is The Intellectual Cost Of The Pro-Choice Position?
• Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

Norman Geisler: There Is Some Truth In False Views

Introduction

In the process of defending views (whether they are worldview, political, or others) we will always come across people who hold to other views. Usually people hold to a particular view because they believe the view accurately reflects reality. However, since no two contradicting views can both be correct, one or both must be incorrect. But why would someone believe a false view? Norman Geisler provides insight into this in his book "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues":

"Few positions are totally without any merit. There is usually enough truth in any false view to make it hold water."

Distinguishing the True and False Parts

It is often difficult to persuade someone of the truth of your view if they believe that their view is accurate. The fact that their view may be able to explain certain parts of reality is what is the foundation for their holding their view. If their view did not have portions of it that were correct, they would not believe it. It is important to recognize these true parts as areas of agreement between the two different views. This will usually establish some trust between the two parties and allow for intellectual (rather than emotive and rhetorical) discussion about the false areas of their opposing view. We can then challenge the false views and show how our view not only explains the true views we've already agreed upon but better explains the areas of reality that the other view cannot.

Could WE Have The False View?

It is important that we also recognize the fact that none of us is omniscient. It is very possible that we would be the one with the incorrect view and are holding to that view because it explains enough (has enough truth) to appear accurate. The difficulty in persuading someone thatbelieve our view is correct could be founded in the fact that our view is actually false. We need to be willing to not only challenge other views but allow our views to be challenged. If our views are the false views, we must change them.

Conclusion

All views that people hold to explain reality contain some portion of truth that allows them a logical reason to believe the view. However, if the true parts are the only part they focus on, they can be blinded to the falsehood of their overall view. It is important that we recognize the true parts of their view to establish unity, but we do that in order to show them where they have gone wrong. If we expect others to recognize that their views may be false and need changing, we must be willing to examine our own views and change them when the evidence and logic is against our view.

To Investigate More, I Recommend:

• Reasons In And Out of a Worldview
• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Is Your View Falsifiable? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

John Oswalt: Progress Requires God

Introduction

Nobody likes to think that they are holding back progress. The idea of progress is used in many areas of political and moral debate as a weapon against those who tend to hold to "traditional" values. "Progressives" argue against the objective truth of Judeo-Christian morality in an effort to legalize their particular desires. In an effort to do so, though, "progressives' are trying to eliminate the only foundation for judging what can be rightly called "progress" and what can rightly be called "regress." In his book The Bible Among The Myths, John N. Oswalt uses philosophy of history to show the necessity of the Creator for progress to even be possible:

"The idea of progress is dependent on the idea that our Creator has a goal for us, outside of ourselves, toward which we humans were made to progress and against which our progress can be measured. Give up that truth, and 'progress' becomes a chimera."

The Foundation Removed

Without an objective goal set, there is no way to determine what truly is progressive and what is not. If an event or action moves a group closer to the realization of the goal, then progress has taken place. If an event or action moves a group away from the realization of the goal, then progress has not taken place. Without a goal, this cannot be judged. In their efforts to eliminate objective morality from public life, "progressives" must argue against God's existence in order to show that morality is relative. But in doing so, they have also forfeited the right to call themselves "progressives."

Conclusion

Interestingly enough, if a "progressive" skeptic wishes to assert and be committed to the idea that progress can objectively be made (by judging those who stand against their views as "regressive"), they implicitly assume that an objective purpose exists outside themselves and outside humanity as a whole. It is up to them to ground such an obligation without God. The reality that progress can be judged against an ideal purpose is evidence that an ideal purpose exists, and that ideal purpose must have a Purposer. If "progress" is possible, God exists.

The Bible Among The Myths contains several nuggets regarding the existence of God, like this one. If you have not taken the time to read this book, you will not be disappointed.

For further investigation into moral relativism, ethics, politics, and purpose, I highly recommend checking out these books:

• Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
• Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Lives

Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I often defend the rightness or wrongness of certain acts, and with that, whether they should be made legal or illegal. I will usually appeal science and logic in these discussions. If the person is a Christian, then I will also appeal to the Bible, if it speaks specifically or general to the topic at hand. When it is clear that all the evidence stands against their view, in a "last-ditch" effort to undermine my arguments the challenger often resorts to appealing to "tolerance." This comes in the form of the person who wants to legalize some particular act saying that by not permitting the act (legalizing it), those in opposition to the legalization (conservatives, usually) are being intolerant and trying to force their morality on the world.

I recently finished reading the book "Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Here is their response to such a challenge:

"When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals."

Who's Legislating Their Morality, Again?

The problem with any law is that it affirms that something is right and its violation is wrong. Laws often include penalties for violating the right that has been provided by the law. What is right and what is wrong is morality. If we truly want to avoid legalizing morality then no law should ever be created. So, if someone is successful in getting their particular behavior legalized, they have just legalized their morality and have successfully forced it on the masses. This means that the complaint of the person trying to get their act to be made legal has just violated their own moral standard of "tolerance."

Conclusion

The next time that someone complains that you just want to force your morality on them, remind them that they are in the same position- they are, in fact, attempting to force their morality on you. Ask them to explain how their doing so is right and your doing so is wrong. This is not something that can be logically defended without affirming the right of the other to do the same. This results in a "stale-mate" and requires that both sides go back to the evidence. This will (hopefully) keep the discussion focused on actual reasons and not go down the "rabbit hole" is emotive rhetoric.

To Investigate Further, I recommend:

• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
• Book Review: Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air

Colin Kaepernick, Cries of the Heart, and Christ

Introduction

The name "Colin Kaepernick" has flooded my Facebook feed this week. Until the last few days, I did not even know his name. From what I could tell, he is a quarterback for the National Football League (NFL)'s team The San Francisco 49r's. The fact that I do not follow any sports means that this sudden appearance in my feed is quite out of the ordinary. So I decided to investigate. It turns out that Kaepernick caused a stir and a great deal of outrage the other day, when he refused to stand for the National Anthem before a preseason game. This is a highly disrespectful decision that he has made clear that he plans to continue. This decision has sparked much outrage on the internet and much praise in the media. While I do believe that what he did was highly disrespectful and should never be encouraged, if we look past his actions to his reasons, we see profound insights (profound for our society, anyway) highlighted by the longings of his heart. These observations and desires that he has expressed provide powerful evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview and a door wide open for him to accept the call of Christ on his life.

However, before you read on, please familiarize yourself with Kaepernick's comments on his decision here.

Two things that he said immediately caught my attention. The first was that he was protesting racial inequality and mistreatment of African-American people. The second what that he said that that "is bigger than football" and even accepted the possible fate of being removed from the NFL and losing endorsements over his decision.

How Should Christians Vote in Political Elections?

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I do not defend just a "mere Christianity" but an entire worldview that encompasses morality and ethics. Unfortunately, politics is necessarily dependent upon those two. How a person governs, legislates, judges, and even votes all comes down to their view of morality and ethics. In any political season, it is necessary for the Christian to understand the proper (true) ethical view to guide their decision in how they vote. They need to not only be grounded for their own decisions, but they need to be prepared for the times in which they can have intelligent discussions on the topic, rather than contributing to the simplistic emoting that we see on the internet today. In this post, I want to take a look at how (if) a Christian should vote when the given option is not clear (who or if we should vote). I will conclude with books that I highly recommend for everyone interested in ethics and politics to read. Please take the time to read this post carefully and the links provided at the end. I believe that they will help prepare you for making the right decision when you go to the voting booth and will help you intelligently discuss and defend your decision.

Don't Force Your Beliefs on Others

Introduction

An interesting meme came across my Facebook feed the other day. It states, "It is okay for you to believe what you believe. It is not okay for you to insist that everyone else believe the same as you." I shared it with a short explanation of the fact that the claim self-destructs. This meme self-destructs because it violates its own claim. It insists that the readers believe what is included in the meme (the idea that we should not insist others believe what we believe). It was not long before my comments were challenged. The conversation included a few different challenges that I addressed. I have included those challenges and my responses below (with a few edits for clarity).

Challenge #1: This is a religion thing!

Response: This is actually a belief that someone is affirming is right and affirming that its opposite is wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are terms of morality. It is logically impossible to not affirm someone's morality with the statement in the meme because it is affirming a moral belief. If someone affirms that the belief (that you should not force your beliefs on others) is right, then they affirm that its opposite (that you should force your beliefs on others) is wrong. If they insist that others hold to that same belief, then they have violated their own belief. That is why it is self-defeating. This has nothing to do with religion; rather it has everything to do with logic.

Challenge #2: There is no morality in this meme.

Response: morality is found in the meme in the implied "should" or "ought" in the affirmative phrase "is not okay." These are terms of obligation that are independent of a person (this is called "objective"). The moral claim is that someone should not force their beliefs on someone else. However, for something like morality to exist, it must have an ontological/metaphysical grounding. If your worldview does not contain such an object (such as God), then objective morality does not exist in your worldview, and nothing can be said to be truly "right" or "wrong;" it is all just a matter of opinion (and enforceable by who's in power). Now, if the person posting this meme is merely offering an opinion, then that is fine. It is their opinion that beliefs should not be forced on someone else, but it cannot go beyond an opinion to be an actual moral obligation. If morality is not objective, then any obligations end at the person asserting them; they do not apply beyond that person (this is called "subjective"). And that is exactly what this meme is denouncing and violating simultaneously. There is morality in this meme; there is not sound logic in this meme.

Challenge #3: We can be good without God. You are saying that I'm immoral because I don't believe the way you do.

Response: That is not my claim. I'm saying that it is only with an ontological foundation that morality (in any objective sense, which is what the meme seems to want to enforce) even exists. It is only if God exists that someone can be either moral or immoral. If there is no ontological grounding for morality, then we are all amoral because the world is amoral. This is not the same as "immoral." "Amoral" indicates the absence of a standard by which to conclude someone or something is moral or immoral. None of what I have said even implies someone's moral status; I've only made claims about the existence of morality that would allow statements about someone's moral status.

Conclusion

This meme and many of its type are quite common on social media these days. It is imperative that we logically evaluate their claims for soundness. If we find that they are not, we need to show how that is so. It is important that people be able to recognize bad logic when they see it, so they can learn to think clearly as other issues and claims arise.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

Recommended Books for Further Investigation:

• Time For Truth: Living Free In A World Of Lies, Hype, and Spin by Os Guinness
• The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting A Generation Free to Know Truth And Love by Josh and Sean McDowell
• Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek